Jump to content

Talk:Republic of China (1912–1949)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Official country name romanization

I'm happy about this change. When I searched up the Qing Dynasty, and went to 6the succesor portion of the i nfobox, it went toi the article about Taiwan. This is a different era.

Official country name romanization

Between 1912-1949, the ROC used Postal Romanization, not Hanyu Pinyin, for romanization of location names for administrative purposes (e.g. Nanking, Foochow, Chungking, etc); hence the name of the ROC would be Chunghwa Minkuo, i.e. in parallel with Chunghwa Post, Chunghwa Telecom, etc. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: article not moved. fish&karate 14:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


Republic of China (1912–1949) → History of the Republic of China (1912–1949) – Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC) To reflect the content of the article and to follow the names of other similar articles. 17:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.48.87.86 (talk • contribs)

  • Oppose for two reasons:
  1. This article is (or should be) about the state of the Republic of China as a whole and not only its history. The infobox and sections on government, military, and economy bear this out. Cf. East Germany.
  2. There is already an article at History of the Republic of China dealing with strictly the history of the republic which would make this article a content fork. Cf. History of East Germany. —  AjaxSmack  23:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Article does not focus entirely on history. Though the other sections are smaller, they can be expanded in the future at any time. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, or else merge content to Republic of China and History of Republic of China. The Republic of China isn't defunct. 119.237.156.46 (talk) 12:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
    • No one is saying that it is defunct. We're simply separating the mainland ROC from today's ROC, because many people ask silly questions like "why did Taiwan fight against Japan during WW2?" and by all means these people are confused for all the right reasons. The status of ROC as a whole is a confusing issue, which is why for those not familiar with ROC/China/Taiwan topics, they may have all sorts of confusions. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Also, are you trying to double-vote by any chance? I get the feeling that 116.48.87.86 and 119.237.156.46 are the same person, since they come from the same location and have the same ISP. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
      • It should not be portrayed as defunct. Unlike many other countries, in the case of the ROC there was no substantial pause in between two separate governments bearing the same full name. And no. I didn't mean to double vote. I didn't bold the word support and it was merely meant to raise my alternative proposal. 119.237.156.46 (talk) 18:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
        • Alright, my apologies for suspecting you. As for the article, what we have done here is basically a mirror of what happens at fr:République de Chine on the French Wikipedia - the splitting between the ROCs of the mainland, Taiwan, and that of Wang Jingwei. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 00:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
          • By splitting the RoC at 1949, you are saying that the RoC before 1949 and the RoC post 1949 are NOT the same state, and that the RoC is not continuous. It doesn't matter if you are mirroring an article or not, but making this article, you are saying that the RoC became defunct in 1949. If a state is not defunct, then there should not be a 'historical state' article for that state, a historical state article means defunctness. In fact, that's what the 'Succeeded by' section means, that those states listed down there are the 'successor state' of the RoC, meaning the RoC has become defunct. The ROC government during 1949 was never 're-established', the government has always been continuous, just moved to Taipei. If you want to use this 'move' as justification for 're-establishment', then that means everytime the RoC moved their capital (something along the lines of 10 times since the start of WWII), you have to create a separate article for that 'RoC'. Wang Jingwei's Nanking government was a separate government altogether, but the RoC government in Nanking post1945 and Taipei post 1949 are one and the same, the articles should not be split. In fact, the Constitution adopted in 1946 is still the same constitution in use today in Taipei. 204.126.132.241 (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose: In addition to what AjaxSmack and Benlisquare said about this article not just being about history, the history in this article is not just the history of the Republic of China, but also the history of the People's Republic of China (and of the other states who succeeded ROC 1912-1949's territory as well) as well. The "substantial pause" that makes 1949 the cutting point between ROC 1912-1949 and ROC (Taiwan) is obviously the establishment of the PRC, which the overwhelming majority of countries (de jure) and everybody (de facto) recognizes as the successor state to China. Quigley (talk) 18:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support move/merge page into History of the Republic of China, though not support moving to History of China (1942-1949). Another suggestion would be to merge this page into the current RoC page, much of this information can be written into the ROC page, I do not see why not. This article is essentially a content fork, most if not all the information here can be transferred to the ROC or ROCHistory page. Liu Tao (talk) 13:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
    • A clear distinction needs to be made between the ROC as government of China and the ROC as government of Taiwan; that is why there are separate articles. Quigley (talk) 19:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
      • And just how do you 'distinctify' the difference? Where is it that you draw the line? The RoC has governing Taiwan since 1945, not 1949. The RoC currently still governs Kinmen and Matsu, which are NOT part of Taiwan, in other words the RoC is more than just the 'Government of Taiwan'. To say that the RoC is the 'government of Taiwan' is to either ignore the fact that Kinmen Matsu are under RoC control or to say that the RoC is Taiwan, one is obvious false and the other is obviously POV. Liu Tao (talk) 20:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
        • The line is drawn at 1949 because that is when the PRC was established. Maybe it's not technically correct, but that's the line that histories of China generally use. There is no option that is "not POV"; until now, Wikipedia actively bolstered the ROC's claim to all of China, which is a fringe viewpoint even within the ROC. Quigley (talk) 04:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
          • And so what if the PRC was established in 1949? So what if the PRC was established in 1949? What does that have to do with the RoC's continuity? To make a 'historical ROC' would imply that the RoC is defunct and no longer exists, whilst multiple evidence points to that the RoC now is the continuation of the 'then RoC', there has been no 'break' in the regime. We are writing an article about the RoC, NOT the PRC, there should be no reason why the PRC should be pulled into this. 204.126.132.241 (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
            • So what if the PRC was established in 1949? Well, the PRC claims to be the successor state to the ROC on (mainland) China, and almost everyone in law and absolutely everyone in practice accepts this reality, if not the PRC's right to take control of Taiwan island. There is ample evidence of the ROC making breaks from its past, such as by abolishing Taiwan Province, relinquishing claims to jurisdiction over mainland China, etc. Quigley (talk) 22:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
              • Almost everyone in law and absolutely everyone in practice accepts this reality? Where do you get your statistics? I work in the field of political science, and I can tell you many if not a majority agree with the view that the RoC then and now are one contintuous state/regime. The PRC in few ways 'succeeded' the RoC, the US lend-lease from WWII was paid IN FULL by the RoC government, NOT the PRC government. Foreign debts of China continues to be the burden of the RoC government. Even if you want to break it at October 1, 1949, what about the other various territories still controlled? When the PRC was established, the RoC Government was in GUANGZHOU, not Taipei. After the loss of Guangzhou, it was moved to Chongqing, then to Chengdu, then finally to Taipei, you're basically skipping over over several months of history here. And even if you do want to make the claim of the RoC 'succeeded' by the PRC, the RoC still remains in existence and should not become a 'historical state', history state articles are used ONLY for defunct states, to make this article is to say either the RoC is defunct or the RoC of then and now are not the same state. Also, I'm truly sorry to have to tear the rest of your argument apart as well. Taiwan Province TO THIS DAY is still IN EXISTENCE, the provincial government is still in existence and has still YET to become abolished. The RoC also has not relinquished claims of jurisdiction over mainland China, as evident in various RoC laws. 98.117.207.8 (talk) 04:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Create page for Republic of China (1945-1949)?

If it makes sense to create ROC (1912-1949), then shouldn't ROC(1945-1949) and ROC(1912-1945) be created instead? Or better yet, combine back into ROC page, but with description in the intro about the 3 major territorial changes. Mistakefinder (talk) 07:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Aye, why is this page even made? The RoC now and then are considered to be the same political entity, only difference is in territory. This page should be combined into the main RoC and history page. Liu Tao (talk) 18:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

No, the ROC now and then are not considered to be the same political entity, except in name. There have been vast changes in the culture, form of government, and territorial range (i.e. democratization and Taiwanization). The current ROC article is practically about Taiwan, as its accompanying map rather obviously shows. There needs to be a separate article for China in the 1912-1949 period so that people are not confused to think that, for example, Taiwan was fighting Japan during World War II. ROC (1912-1949) refers to the whole of China during that time period, as it was internationally recognized and accepted as a part of the PRC's history. To not have another article is to say that the PRC has definitely not succeeded the ROC and that the ROC today has rights over all of China (which it has not seeked since the 1970s). Quigley (talk) 00:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
What about Quemoy and the Matsu Islands, which are ROC's all through 1912 to 2011? Shall we say the Republic of China (1949–) took it over from the Republic of China (1912–1949) (or, perhaps, the Republic of China (1912–1945) ceded it to Republic of China (1949–))? And what about the Tachen Islands, which was evacuated with the help of the US Navy and fell to the People's Republic of China (1949–)? 119.237.156.46 (talk) 12:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Mistakefinder and Liu Tao. The significant points of change were 1945 and 1949, and both were solely about geography or, precisely, territorial extent under effective control of the government. But then the 1928 unification would arguably as significant, with most of the major competing governments united under one single government. The post-1949 changes were gradual instead of one-off. The Taipei government controls the Chinese representation in the UN way until 1971, and did not break off full official ties at ambassadorial level with Washington, D.C. until 1978. The electorate wasn't restored to the local people until 1996. Democratisation and Taiwanisation did not take place in one go in 1949, thereby do not justify the year as a break off point for two separate articles. The 1911 to 2011 history of the Republic of China was a continuum. This article should be merged into Republic of China and History of the Republic of China. 119.237.156.46 (talk) 12:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Aye, you can't just put your foot down on 1949. Hainan was not lost until 1950, Dachen in 1951. There were numerous enclaves within mainland itself which were not taken over by the communists until 1960. The KMT were in what is now Northern Burma until 1980. Also, the RoC did not just have one provisional capital after the fall of Nanking in 1949, government was first moved to Canton, then Chengdu, and finally Taipei. The RoC government had been continuous since 1928, the 1947 constitution also remains in effect. As far as political science goes, the RoC now and then is still the same state. There was no 'breakage' in the RoC, the only 'break' that can arguably be used would be Yuan's ascent to Emperor in the 1920s after he 'dissolved' the RoC and established the Empire of China. That was the only point in history when the RoC government had to be 'reestablished'. 98.117.207.8 (talk) 04:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Propose Merge

Not moved. Shrigley (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I propose that Republic of China (1912–1949) be merged into Republic of China and History of the Republic of China. This article splits the RoC at 1949 with no clear reasoning as to why except to 'differentiate from current government on Taiwan' yet fails to maintain a criteria for creating these 'new articles'. There is no obvious change in the RoC in terms of government continuum, the government in Taipei after 1949 is the same government in Nanking before 1949, with the same institutions, laws, and constitution, in simple terms, the RoC state has been continuous throughout 1949. The ROC state was never 'reestablished', territory was lost and the government was moved.

The article was made as an attempt to 'Taiwanise' the current RoC article as well as make 'defunct' the RoC so a 'precessor article' for the PRC can be made, both of which are considered highly controversial in terms of NPOV. By creating a 'historical' RoC article, it is to say the RoC has become defunct in 1949 which is clearly POV viewpoint while many evidence points to the contrary. If the movement of the RoC government is to be used as an excuse, then logically there must be a separate article for each of these 'separate governments', in fact the RoC capital was not moved directly to Taipei from Nanking, it was first moved to Guangzhou in April, Chongqing in October, and Chengdu in November before it was finally moved to Taipei in December, yet none of this was mentioned within the article, these information has virtually in fact been skipped out and ignored. Not to mention, the RoC capital was also moved several times during WWII, with Chongqing as the capital for almost ten years, yet no separate 'historical state' article was made for this 'RoC', despite not even operating under the same Constitution as it is now.

Most if not all of the information in this article can be placed within the current RoC and RoC History articles, there is no reason as for why this article was created, in fact this article should not even exist. The creation of this article was most definitely a political and POV move creating a content fork diverting all 'non-Taiwan' information here and vice versa to the current RoC article. There should be no reason at which why any of the information in this article cannot be put into the current RoC or RoC History articles, which is why this article should be merged into those two articles. Liu Tao (talk) 15:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Here's the criteria and rationale for the article. Mainland China was basically ruled by the Republic of China from 1912–1949. In standard histories of China, "Republic of China (1912–1949)" is a discrete concept, as well as "People's Republic of China (1949–present)". We need an article about all of China that we can point to in the history articles of this period; not about the history of the regime that ruled China and now does not*. Nitpicking about months and capitals aside, the RoC has existed on Taiwan and a few minor islands since 1949. You're right that there was no "obvious" change in the RoC in accepting its new territorial boundaries; this process is gradual and still continues today. However, equating the Republic of China with Taiwan is a foregone conclusion in the rest of the world, as reflected in the reliable sources.
*I take no position on whether Taiwan is "part" of "China". Quigley (talk) 15:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
The RoC in many times throughout its history did not 'basically rule' the mainland. The current government, as could be traced back to Sun Yat-sen's government-in-exile in Tokyo of 1913 in maybe HALF of its history ruled over a vast majority of China. The Northern Expedition was not completed until 1928, that was when the current government for the first time controlled 'all' of China. War with Japan started in 1931, first with the loss of Manchuria, then Zhongyuan, Yangtze, and most of the East Coast. During this period of 14 years, a vast chunk of mainland China was not under the control of the RoC. Fast forward to 1948, when less than HALF of China was under RoC control, by that time Mainland China was by no means 'basically controlled by the RoC'. Why do you not make any cuts to these two times? Why not make another cut for the pre-1928 Nationalist Government of Sun Yat-sen? These are all OBVIOUS changes to the RoC territory, why make the change at 1949?
Also, your statement regarding the RoC existing 'on Taiwan and a few minor islands since 1949' is inaccurate. Assuming you put the cut at December 7 of 1949, the RoC at that POINT IN TIME also had control of Hainan, Dachen Islands, numerous enclaves within the mainland, as well as what is now northern Burma. Why are NONE of these mentioned? The RoC's loss of territory has ALWAYS been GRADUAL since the 1940s, when there is gradual change like this, you CANNOT legitimally put a cut ANYWHERE during the course of this 'gradualisation', rather this whole 'gradualisation' must be talked about AS A WHOLE, and frankly, this gradualisation did not end until the 1960s, arguably 1980.
The 'standard histories' you speak of puts the cut at 1 October 1949, which is CLEARLY and inappropriate place to make the cut. Those who make that cut recalls the RoC as a 'defunct state', which it clearly is not, and as argued earlier, continuous with the current government in Taipei.
Even if you want to argue to 'historic aspect' of the RoC, then it means that the article should be written into a HISTORICAL article, rather than that of a STATE. By writing a historical state article, you are CLEARLY stating that the RoC is a defunct state, this article, if to be created at all, should have been a SUBPAGE of the RoC History page and NOT a historical state article, which is obviously inappropriate for the type of 'historical article' you are referring to. Even if not written into a subpage, redirects for specific sections of the RoC History page can also be deemed appropriate for whatever matters you have at mind. A state article is to clearly say that these two 'RoCs' are SEPARATE and DISTINCT political entities, which frankly as multiple evidence shows, they are not.
As stated many times, Wikipedia is not a democracy, majority does not always rule. Most of the world may regard the RoC as 'Taiwan', but the matter is, it is NOT Taiwan. The current RoC still maintains control over Kinmen Matsu and some South Sea islands, which by NO DEFINITION other than 'RoC = Taiwan' are a part of Taiwan be it geographically, politically, or historically. The claim of the RoC 'consisting mostly of Taiwan' also will not fly well, as as I've said, the RoC controlled numerous territories other than Taiwan post-1949 which if you amount it up, would be MORE than Taiwan. Hainan itself is the same size as Taiwan, what is now northern Burma easily constitutes Taiwan's size, not to mention the numerous enclaves within mainland itself which were not lost until 1960. If you want to put a cut regarding 'most of its territory being Taiwan', your cut must be NO EARLIER than 1950, the year Hainan is lost to the Communist. To claim that the RoC is Taiwan is unanimously considered to be POV in wikipedia, and there remains a sizeable population who does NOT regard the RoC as Taiwan, which continues to be the case. Current RoC laws also regard the RoC as RoC, NOTHING has been legislated saying the RoC is 'Taiwan'. WP manual states to write about current situation and NOT 'predict the future', which means that as long as the current situation still stands, as long as the RoC does not pass a law making the RoC 'Taiwan', we are not to write 'ROC = Taiwan'. Liu Tao (talk) 16:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. I agree that the History section of the Republic of China should deal with the history of the state prior to 1949, just like the History sections of France or Italy go back very far. However, the other sections of the article should exclusively deal with the current state - the main topic of the article is not about history but about the sovereign state as it currently is, it's current economy, political system, etc. Likewise, outside of the History section, we don't talk about the Roman Empire, or Vichy France in the Italy or France articles, so we shouldn't talk about mainland China ROC in the ROC article (again, except in the History section). PS: as for the the POV that the ROC = China, well... let's move on. Laurent (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Aye, which is why I proposed to both into the History and RoC articles, those that should be in the RoC article goes there, and those that belong in the history article goes there. I'm not asking to dupe everything into both articles, I'm asking to merge appropriate bits of this article into both articles. I've said nothing about promoting the 'ROC = China' POV, in fact I support ROC = ROC, that's really as NPOV as you can get with anything. Liu Tao (talk) 18:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Oppose First, I oppose making a decision about this article in isolation. Given the unusual nature of the ROC's move from mainland China to Taiwan articles about the history of the ROC tie to articles about China, Taiwan and the ROC. There is a discussion at the ROC article about merging the ROC and Taiwan articles, and this move would certainly affect that discussion and could even be seen as an attempt to influence that dicussion.
I also oppose this merger because I agree with Quigley's reasons given above. Readin (talk) 06:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Support - The ROC as explained by OP has been continuous and there is no clear split regarding 1949, as the RoC continues to lose territory even after 1949. The year of 1949 was used in regards for the formation of the PRC, under the impression that the RoC has become defunct and succeeded by the PRC, whilst evidently the RoC continues to exist even after the establishment of the PRC, in fact, when the PRC was established, the RoC government was located in Guangzhou, not Taipei. --LLTimes (talk) 03:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
We can't argue about what "impressions" this article's existence gives, because that's subjective. But it is an objective fact that the ROC has been succeeded by the PRC on the mainland. Quigley (talk) 20:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Then you are making claim and pushing POV that the RoC has become a defunct state and that the state of the RoC is not the same plotical state as before 1949. Liu Tao (talk) 01:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Support - I do not see any point in this article in the first place. The period directly after the establish of the communist regime saw many territorial changes (Hainan, Dachen Islands etc.) as stated by many earlier on, even Tibet was not officially part of the PRC until 1951 when they "signed" that "agreement" with Beijing. Some in Taiwan are already arguing that a "new" "Republic of China (Taiwan)" was established after the reforms which got rid of the "thousand-year" National Assembly and Legislative Yuan in 1992, or during the first direct Presidential election in 1996. So should we have a Republic of China (1949-1992) or Republic of China (1949-1996) article as well? Wow, so the Republic of China has so many different ages (100 years old, 38 years old, 19 years old, 15 years old) then? Raiolu (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
This article is about the territory of China from the years 1912-1949, including history, economy, culture, military, etc. It is by convention that the name of the governing regime (ROC) is used. You can create ROC (1949-1992) or (1949-1996) if that convention is used by reliable sources; we have articles such as Third Republic of South Korea and French Fifth Republic as examples. But "Republic of China (1912-1949)" is definitely a discrete concept in histories of China. Quigley (talk) 20:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Then the article should be named "History of China (1912-1949)" and make it a historical article, not one of a political state. To make a historical state article, you are saying that the states are not continuous and that they are different political entities. The Korean example you use refers to the MULTIPLE governments disposed and re-established with new constitutions throughout the ROK's history, whilst the current RoC government is arguably descends from the Government-in-Exile established by Sun Yat-sen in Tokyo in 1913. The RoC government since then was never 'disposed and re-established', it was only 'moved' or 'reformed'. Even if you want to use the Constitution as a standard to do splits, the current RoC constitution was adopted in 1947, not 1949. Liu Tao (talk) 01:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
So am I right to say that we should also have a Republic of China (1947-1949) article too since you based it on when the current constitution was adopted? Raiolu (talk) 14:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I did not say it should be based on the current constitution as adopted, I'm saying that the 1949 split has no clear standardised method behind the split, it was split in response to another article, but not central to the RoC itself. The thing with the ROK is that they've gone through many governments, with every government comes a new Constitution. Whilst the same is with the RoC (Beiyang, Yuan Shi-kai, etc.), these various governments were gone quite near the end. The RoK saw a series of coup de'tat and overthrows which DISSOLVED their government and reestablishing another. The current RoC government however, as far as I can trace back, goes all the back to the Southern Government when Sun Yat-sen came to power there in 1923, since then, the RoC government despite going through multiple 'constitutions' and moves, it has largely been continuous. I'm not saying splitting on Constitution is bad, but in my opinion, splitting based upon government/regimes would be better, as it is the government/regimes which makes the basis of the state. I mean, it can be argued that adoption of a new constitution creates a new regime, but it would split some regimes into multiple ones including separate governments, not to mention many governments have operated without constitutions at times, but meh, this is just all personal preferences and opinions, if you want to split it according to government/regime or consitutions. But regardless of how we split it, 1949 is not an appropriate year to split the articles. Liu Tao (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Another note, as I did not read your post correctly, it would be wrong to have a RoC article from 1947-1949 if you are just basing the split on the Consitution alone. If you are basing on the Constitution alone, it should be from 1947-present, as the current RoC Constitution is the same Constitution as adoped in 1947, albeit amended, but then, all Constitutions have been amended one time or the other. Liu Tao (talk) 00:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but that earlier statement and question I wrote was meant for Quigley. Apologies if you have misunderstood my intentions Liu Tao. Raiolu (talk) 09:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

an arbitrary break

Support - Also support, due to the reasons Liu Tao outlined. It was unnecessary to break into two articles, and all changes due to loss of territory in war should be described in the history section of the article. Because of the unusual nature of ROC having lost so much territory that it's bascially confined to a major island, the fact of this loss should be described briefly in the intro. In fact the mention of the takeover of Taiwan in 1945 should be mentioned also (and the question over the validity of continued ROC rule in Taiwan mentioned to point to the Taiwan Indepence article). Mistakefinder (talk) 04:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Oppose -The RoC is the same government that ruled the mainland but it has a new capital and the land changed, so their should be a different article for the two time periods. The RoC Has Had a brief but complex history. I'm not sure if anybody can learn ALL the history of the RoC. So two articles works really well. If we merge them than we will have one big rubbish article, but we could have two neat articles if we leave them alone. Tyle4ful (talk) 21:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
'Land Change' is not a reasonable reason for splitting articles. The United States started as 13 colonies on the East Coast and ended up as the world's 3rd/4th largest state, yet nothing breaks the US according to these 'land changes'. No large state with a long history has not gone through territorial changes, everyone has either gained or lost territory, yet none of their articles have not been split on this change in territory, not to mention 1949 isn't the only time the RoC has gone through 'territorial changes'.
As for Capitals, the same goes. Virtually every nation which has gone to war has lost their capital and moved their government, not to mention there's no law declaring the Capital of the RoC being Taipei (frankly, there's no law declaring the capital of the RoC at all). If the placement of the Government is an issue, the same still goes, the RoC has gone through MULTIPLE government moves, no less since the Sino-Japanese War. If you want to split according to change in government location, then you have to split everytime the RoC has moved their government. Liu Tao (talk) 02:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Liu Tao's point. Also many countries had capital changes like Nigeria from Lagos to Abuja, Brazil to Brasilia, and the US too from Philadelphia to New York to Washington, D.C. There are not separate country articles for each of these changes. It would be ridiculous! The separate article "ROC (1912-1949)" only makes sense if it's like the Third Reich or the French Fifth Republic where a total change in the ruling regime happened. The ROC, rather than changed, shrunk and relocated. Mistakefinder (talk) 09:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
'Land Change' IS a reasonable reason for splitting articles. Byzantine Empire and Roman Empire are split despite their official name are both 'Roman Empire' and Byzantine Empire is the continuation of roman empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.109.113.28 (talk) 07:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Actually no, the Roman Empire was deliberately split into two halves, the Western and Eastern Roman Empire in 364, with the Eastern Roman Empire dubbed 'Byzantine Empire' by modern historians. This was not territorial change, rather this was entirely new states were created and replaced the old one. The RoC is not the case, the RoC government was never dissolved or 'split out' a PRC, the RoC government/regime remains continuous to this day. Liu Tao (talk) 14:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Disagree with this point, because if this were true, then Poland should also be split into several articles. (and counterpoint on point below.) Mistakefinder (talk) 09:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
In chinese history the conventional "dynasty change" always leads to a separate article on wikipedia for the rump state of the former dynasty which still kept its name and calender. If the kingdom lost the administration over almost the china proper, for example
The current status of the Republic of China is similar to the two examples above, so i think the separation for the articles here is reasonable and should be keep. (Han Dynasty and Song Dynasty are not in this case because both Western/Eastern Han controlled China proper as well, Southern Song still controlled half of the China proper)219.85.212.214 (talk) 16:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
The Southern Ming article is NOT a historical state article, it does not use the historical state template. As for the Northern Yuan article, it's in a bunch of mess, the Yuan was abolished in 1402, there were no emperors after 1402, only Khans, yet the article fails to split the article to address this in any way. Anyways, regardless of the validity of the Northern Yuan articles, I am analysing this from strictly a political scientist's perspective, I don't think if we are even supposed to write the articles 'according to Chinese custom'. If you want to take Chinese customs, then fine, Chinese custom that the successor writes the precessor's history, problem is when the precessor is still in existence, anything you write regarding their 'defunctless' will be POV and against Wikipedia NPOV. Also, according to 'Chinese custom', if the 'precessor' somehow holds out, continues, and comes back to retake and defeat their 'successors', the 'successor' is written out and their dynasty is never counted in because the 'history' written by the 'successor' is illegitimate and becomes discarded. In other words, the newer dynasty's claim of acension does not become 'set' until the previous dynasty is completely wiped out, which is still the case of the RoC, you cannot write assuming the RoC will become defunct in the future.
Also, the Ming did not lose 'almost all of china proper' with the fall of Chongzhen, the death of Chongzhen marked the loss of Beijing. The Ming at the time had control of most, if not half of China Proper (The Ming had AT LEAST everything south the Huai river). The fall year of the Ming was placed at 1644 because that was the year the capital was taken, the old emperor dead, and the the 'first emperor' was instated, whilst the Ming Emperors became 'pretenders' even though the Ming had control of more than half of China proper at the time. That 1644 year was written by the Qing, just as the 1949 year written by the Communists. Had the Ming not been conquered by the Qing, came back, and drove the Qing back out out of China proper, then the 'Qing History' would be discarded as rubbish and their own history put back. In other words, until the RoC is abolished, the PRC claim of succession is not 'set'. Not to mention, the PRC's claim of 1949 is actually their own founding day, Oct 1, at the time the RoC government was located at Guangzhou, and to be still moved another 3 times before arriving in Taipei. The year of 1949 comes from the PRC's own version of events, in other words, the PRC's POV. Liu Tao (talk) 19:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Your claim that the PRC has not succeeded the ROC in China rests on the dubiously neutral assumption that Taiwan is an essential part of China. Also, trying to create the impression of ROC legal rule on China after 1949 with this merge is exactly "discarding [PRC history] as rubbish and [ROC's] own history put back". Quigley (talk) 20:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I did not say that the PRC did not succeed the RoC, I'm saying that the PRC's claim of succession is dubious, it's very difficult to claim succession of a state still in existence. I have said nothing about Taiwan being an essential part of, nor did I try to create teh impression of the RoC legal ruling over all of China after 1949. I'm saying to split at 1949 is without meaningful cause, the year 1949 is used because that is the year the PRC is established and 'succeeding' the RoC, a claim of which is controversial and definitely in the POV zone. I'm saying to treat the RoC as the RoC, don't pull all the other states into this, you can use other states as models, but do not split articles just so it can conform to a specific POV. If you want to split articles, then set a standard for a split, don't just split at a point and expect it to fly, and split accordingly, if you are gonna create a political state article, then make sure you're not splitting one state into 2. Set a definition and go with it, don't make exceptions and whatnots. Liu Tao (talk) 00:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
The split of article of Northern Yuan to Yuan obviously rely on the great change of territory and the state capital. Regardless of the abolish of the name 'Great Yuan' after a coup d'état, conventionally the history of Northern Yuan (1368-1402) does not included in Yuan Dynasty. The status of Yuan and Ming in 1368-1402 is fully comparable to the ROC and PRC today, and the former located in a split article.
And there is another example of Liao Dynasty even split to three articles, the other two is Northern Liao and Western Liao (Kara-Khitan Khanate) due to the great change of territory. Here Liao didn't abolish their national name and calender until the conquer of Mongolian. All these support the spliting of articles of the ROC.219.85.212.214 (talk) 06:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
The split of the article reflects the Ming's POV view where the Yuan has become defunct and the Ming has become the rightful rulers of 'all under heaven'. I study history, I know how Chinese history is written, which is that it's written in a very China centric with a fairly high degree of POV when it comes to perception. The status of Yuan/Ming in 1368-1404 does not compare to the current ROC/PRC relationship, because the Yuan has become abolished and nonexistent. During the time of 'Northern Yuan', there were 2 sets of histories, there's the Ming claim and the Yuan claim, when the Yuan was abolished, the Yuan claim ceased to exist and the Ming claim took prominence. Currently, there are still 2 claims, there's the ROC claim that it is continuous with the 'ROC' from before 1949, and the PRC claim that the ROC has become defunct. According to 'Chinese Customs', these 2 claims will not be settled until either the PRC or the ROC claim dies, and until it does, these 2 claims will continue to take prominence in their respective states. The 'Northern Yuan' history was not split out because of 'major territorial change', it was because when Zhu Yuangzhang became Emperor, the Ming viewed the Yuan as defunct and the Ming is the rightful successor, and the 'Northern Yuan' was termed to differentiate it from the previously in power 'Yuan'. Had the Yuan come back and defeat the Ming, the Ming's claim would have never taken prominence. THAT is the 'Chinese Custom' when it comes to writing history, the successor writes the precessor's history. Until the RoC has become abolished, there will continue to be 2 claims, and until those two claims are settled, Wikipedia does not allow us to just go with one particular claim. You have two separate sets of historical views, you CANNOT just pick and go with one set.
As for the Liao, it's split pretty logically. The Northern and Western Liao were created entirely separate from the Liao itself, albeit both were created as an continuation of the Liao, the thing is their claim became somewhat skewered. Let's start with the Northern Liao, the Northern Liao started in 1122, 3 years BEFORE the fall of the Liao. Its first emperor Xuanzong was at first only a prince stationed in what is today Beijing (then called Nanjing), when communications with the Emperor [Tianzuo} was lost, Xuanzong rose to take the place of the Emperor, assuming Tianzuo had been killed. Obviously this was not the case, as Tianzuo continued to reign until 1125, 2 years AFTER the Northern Liao became defunct. The Northern Liao was not split out from the main Liao because of 'major territorial loss', it was split out because it is in essence, became a parallel regime to the Liao.
As for the Western Liao, that's much more complicated, because its disputed if it's a continuation of the Liao at all. To begin with, it was established as a separate state altogether, a Khanate. It was established by a Liao general in 1124, one year BEFORE the end of Tianzuo's reign. I mean it's debatable if they even took the name of 'Liao', the term 'Western Liao' was termed by Chinese Historians to emphasize its continuation of the Liao, whilst other peoples refer to the Empire without the 'Liao' altogether. Regardless, it is in its own essence a separate state altogether, it was created entirely from the ground up with a new government and whatnots. The ROC was not created from the ground up after 1949, all government institutions and organisations were moved to Taipei at the end of 1949, not re-established. The President, Legislatures, Officials, Agency heads, etc were all the same before and after the move. If an analogy is to be made, the best analogy would be the last Liao emperor, Tianzuo who continuouly moved about after the loss of his capital until the final dissolution of his regime in 1125, problem is the dissolution of the RoC has not happened yet. Liu Tao (talk) 15:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't think dynasty change can be compared with a modern republic, and besides if a government/regime has not been destroyed and still exists and operates with its original name, then it cannot be considered "defunct" or "succeeded" by another govt, and would not need a separate article. These territorial changes should all be covered in the History section of the article or the detailed History of Republic of China article. That's the purpose of the history entries. Mistakefinder (talk) 09:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
The case with Tianzuo is very interesting. But the KMT is not in that situation where a family-dynastic-king dies and the dynasty dies with it. If full independence is not allowed, the other scenario is if the pan-green camp win every election from now and the KMT just become irrelevant. HK pro-democracy camps are like that. They are becoming more and more irrelevant due to financial issues as the majority of HK wealthy class only contribute to pro-Beijing camps nowadays. Eventually the entire HK will be dominated by pro-Beijing camp permanently. Taiwan can do the same by making sure the KMT never wins again. It'll be almost like unofficial Taiwan independence. Benjwong (talk) 05:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
And what does this have to do the current discussion? We talk not about TW independence, we are talking about the legitimacy of this article. Liu Tao (talk) 09:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
It has everything to do with the topic. The biggest reason of moving PRC -> China is not because of just a naming issue. That was a move to assure people understand ROC != China anymore. The current wiki moves are quite trendy. If we were looking at a pan-green government next, Taiwan = Taiwan and the ROC is less irrelevant. And as I was comparing before, it will be like HK pro-democrat politics, totally irrelevant. That's why I initially wanted to wait for 2012 until after their ROC elections before making any more wiki moves. But now that we already moved PRC -> China. There is no reason not to move post-1949 ROC to Taiwan to be consistent. Benjwong (talk) 22:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
And before you jump on me. I was all for keeping a big China article that was like Chinese civilization, where we have both ROC and PRC states under it. Probably only in that scenario is ROC pre-1949 the same as post-1949. Benjwong (talk) 22:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I read the Admin posts for the reason to their decision, and if I remember correctly, it was NOT because the RoC != China 'anymore', it was because in the 'English language China has come to mean the PRC as well as being the most common name of the PRC' therefore per wikinaming it should be what happens. However, that is not the case with the RoC as a SIZEABLE force refuses to acknowledge the RoC = Taiwan, to do so is considered heavily POV. I also did not say anything to push that the RoC = Taiwan, I only pushed to maintain that the RoC = RoC, you CANNOT be any more NPOV than that. Also, despite the PRC article named 'China', it does not give the PRC a 'free reign' over using the 'China card', WP:Naming only dictates using the most common English name, in-article text still abides by former rules of NPOV. As for post-pre1949 RoC, unless you can provide me a concrete criteria which will fall in line with this split, then I will continue to be against it. The RoC is a political entity, I am looking at it strictly from a Political Scientist's point of view, and from what I can see, the RoC has been continuous post-and-pre 1949, there is no clear 'legitimate' reason for split at 1949. Liu Tao (talk) 18:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
The POV part goes both ways. Is not that I don't want ROC to be continuous. But look around. There are too many loopholes to prove it is not continuous. HK and Macau left the Qing to be Euro territories. No ROC president has ever claimed HK and Macau are ROC territories because ROC is continuous from the Qing. PRC is at least consistent. They repeat year after year that when the Nanking treaty expires, those territories are ours. There is no such thing as ROC. They repeat these same statement every year from 1949 to 1999. That is very solid. Benjwong (talk) 01:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

another arbitrary break

  • I would oppose these mergers, on the basis that the articles involved are already too long as they are.
ROC is 163 Kb, and History of ROC is 80 Kb; I fail to see how adding the 30 Kb of material here to either would be an improvement. And if the proposal is a euphemism for simply deleting and redirecting, I would strongly oppose that. At this stage we should be considering splitting these articles, not merging them.
I think I know a bit about Chinese history but even I find the current arrangement confusing; the ROC article, which purports to be about the state from 1912 to the present, proclaims from the hatnote to the lead sentence to the infobox material that it is "About the sovereign state on Taiwan since 1949": While containing a history section that covers the full period, it says little or nothing about the structure of the state before 1949. And it takes 44 pages to do so.
Like it or not (and there is a lot of POV from both sides flying around here) from a western perspective 1949 was a watershed in Chinese affairs, and thus it makes eminent sense to deal with the pre- and post-1949 periods separately. I for one am interested in the state of affairs before 1949; the form of government, the administrative divisions, the facts and figures, the politics, policies, reforms etc and how they got on. The ROC (1912-49) article is a good place to go for that; I don’t want to have to trawl thoroWugh a 44 page article to find what I’m looking for. The ROC article should be separated into pre-and post-1949 material, the pre-49 stuff merged here, and the post-49 stuff moved to an ROC (1949 -present) title. IMHO. Xyl 54 (talk) 19:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, like it or not, the RoC as a state did NOT become defunct in 1949. If you want to split it as is, then you are pushing that the RoC post and pre 1949 are NOT the same political entity, not only that, you are saying the ROC became defunct in 1949 and is not continuous. We already said, merge into BOTH the history and main ROC article, the stuff that belongs in the historical article goes into the history article, the stuff that goes into the main ROC goes into the main ROC. We're not saying to dupe all this stuff into BOTH articles, we're saying to sift through and put what's appropriate into either articles, because frankly, this article SHOULD NOT have even existed. In fact, this article defeats the point of having a 'History of the ROC' in the first place, the 'History of the RoC' article was created to address the history of the ROC, if you looking for stuff about the history of the RoC, that's where you should go, there is NO NEED for a 'defunct ROC state' article to be created, the ONLY reason why this article was created was so that they could have and article for the PRC to 'succeed', the reasons behind creating this article is obviously POV motivated. I do not care what the 'western perspective' is, I only care if a state is continuous or not, if it is, it should NOT be split into 2 articles with the former article be a 'defunct state'. Unless you can bring up a good criteria for 'discontinuity' or 'defunctness' which applies to the RoC in 1949, there is no legitimate claim behind making a 'defunct RoC'.
Also, that 1949 hapnote was added when they split the articles, it should be categorised as within the issue, not as an agrument against/for. The main RoC article should be referring to the RoC as a whole, with emphasis on modernity, all historical stuff regardless of pre or post 1949 should be put into the HISTORICAL section/article, there's a reason we have that. Even if you complain that the Historical article would be 'too long', then split the HISTORICAL article, not the state article. You don't see people trying to split the United States article into multiple 'defunct state' articles because it's 'too long', in fact you don't see people trying to split ANY state articles into multiple 'defunct state' articles because it's 'too long'. You only create a defunct state article for defunct states, not the 'first half of a state'. Liu Tao (talk) 17:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I never said ROC was a defunct state, and I’ll thank you to refrain from putting words in my mouth.
What I said was 1949 was a watershed, and it takes a particular POV to not see that. Before 1949 the ROC was the largest country in the world by population, and the 3rd or 4th by size; after 1949 it was the 49th and 136th respectively . Before, it was the home to the vast majority of Han Chinese, as well as about 50 other ethnic minority groups with populations exceeding one million; after, less than a quarter of one percent of those people lived there. Before it was a one party state; now it’s a parliamentary democracy. Before, it was a major player on the world stage, and its leader was one of the Big Five; after it was a backwater, and its main foreign policy concern was its cross-strait dispute. The ROC then and the ROC today may have some linear connection politically, but they are physically, ethnically, linguistically, militarily and strategically, completely different places. So the only reason to deny the relevance of a 1949 break is to push very particular interpretation, one which is not widely shared outside Taiwan.
And it is not true that country articles have to be all on one page. We have articles for the USA (to use your example) before and after 1776, for the UK, Germany, Russia, amongst others. And we have a number of articles on the various phases of both China and Taiwan. (check the templates). So your merger makes no sense to the overall scheme of the articles here.
And, to repeat, the ROC articles we have currently offend WP:SIZE. They need splitting, not merging. Xyl 54 (talk) 15:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, if it is not a defunct state, then why create a defunct state article? The very existence of a defunct state article is to say that it is defunct.
Reread my points, I said 1949 was not an appropriate time to make the split, the criteria for the split is either flawed or pushing POV. Unless you can rough up a legitimate criteria to split at 1949, then 1949 should not be the year the article is split. As for the '1949 facts with ROC', you're going to need to provide a more definite point in time, not a year, a year is 12 months, much can happen in 12 months. In fact, you saying 'before and after 1949' ENTIRELY blocks out the year of 1949, everything which has happened during that year has been skipped out. If you want to make a split, you split at a point in time, not a chunk of time, nobody does that. Also, your claims are flawed, the RoC was no longer 3rd or 4th by size, or the largest populated nation in 1949 (assuming 'before 1949' as in before 1 Jan 1949), in fact, the RoC has lost almost all north of Yangtze by 1949, to be more specific, the RoC were on full retreat by the beginning of 1949 and trying to defend the Yangtze from being overrun, and after 1949 your numbers are entirely off, there WEREN'T even 136 states in 1950, and the RoC territory at the end of 1949 was at least triple of its current size. You treat 1949 like a point in time, where the territory was lost all at once, that is not the case, territory was lost gradually and continues to be lost post-1949 (hence the incorrect data you gave). Number of states in 1950 was barely a hundred, half of the current ~200 states.
Before 1949, the RoC was NOT a one-party state, you keep forgetting consitution was adopted in 1947 and first elections were held the same year, the adoption of the constitution marked the END of one party state (political tutelage era). Since then, the RoC has always been multi-party, if you want to claim that the KMT monopolised power and was still a 'one party state', then 1949 would definitely not be an appropriate year for the split, as new parties were not allowed to be created until the 1980s. Also, the RoC's not a parliamentary democracy, the RoC never had a parliament, maybe pre-constitution it did, but post-constitution there were definitely no parliaments, that year is 1947, not 1949. The RoC continues to be a major player in the world stage after 1949, the RoC did not leave the UN until 1971, before that they could veto anything the UN brings up, I think that's enough to constitute a 'major player on the world stage'. Well, to be frank, the RoC before 1945 was arguably NOT a major player in the world stage, before the formation of the UN, the RoC was weak and rarely considered to be of importance on a global stage (main global player in the East Asia region at the time was Japan, not China). Heck, the RoC's economy had never been larger than Japan, there was no way the RoC could have been considered a 'world player' before WWII (I'm going to leave the 14 years of war blank because it's too complicated, but it still gets my points through). Immediately after 1949 was not cross-strait disputes, it was trying to stop Communist advance, as as I have said, the RoC territory immediately after 1949 (1 Jan 1950) was at least triple its current size ('triple' is very conservatively, only reason why I made the 'triple' estimate is because I don't know how much territorial enclaves the RoC controlled on the mainland translated into area, I only calculated the territory I can confirm the exact area, but it's definitely more than triple, if I've to give a fair estimate, it would be at least maybe 5-6 times its current size). And as for 'different places', not to be sarcastic or anything, but I'm pretty sure that Taiwan has been under RoC administration since 1945, not 1949. When you say 'different places', you imply something has been moved, rather in the case of the RoC, it was not 'moved', it shrank. It's like saying 'my clothes are in different places' vs 'my clothes shrunk', entirely different meanings.
Also, I did not say everything had to be on one page, I said to put the appropriate stuff in its appropriate articles, frankly the vast majority should be duped into the history article. The current RoC article is the same length as the current USA article, adding a few more words and taking out a bunch (much of the current RoC article is garbage and heavily needs to be reorganised and many parts rewritten or just straight up deleted, there are too much redundancies and duplications within the article), heck the introduction is 9 paragraphs long, when you have an intro 9 paragraphs long, then it says that the article needs to be reorganised and cleaned. The US has a 13 colonies article, true, but look at the article, it was written as a HISTORICAL article, not a HISTORICAL STATE article. It's written from the concept that the US history page is too long and as a result they split the US History page into multiple subpages, that is NOT the case here, where a political state page was created altogether. In fact, the current main US History page, despite having been split into like 10 subpages, is still LONGER than the current RoC History page, I see no violation in progress. If you want to split the main RoC History page into subpages, I am fine as long as those are SUBPAGES, and there remains a main RoC History page, but if you want to split a state into 'defunct state' articles, then that's an absolute no. If you feel that the current RoC page is too large, then split out subpages, not the entire state. In fact, splitting out a pre-1949 article has done NOTHING to shorten the RoC article, it's actually GROWN since the split. Liu Tao (talk) 18:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
The post 1949 Taiwan is just too different from "Republic of China (1912–1949)" in so many ways. Even before when there was a PRC article, there wasn't any intention to merge "Republic of China (1912–1949)" with the full "Republic of China" article. If anything, the post 1949 article have a chance to move to the Taiwan article name permanently. Benjwong (talk) 04:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
We talk about the RoC, we are not talking about Taiwan. Before there was a PRC article, this article didn't exist, this article was created in early oct. As for the 'difference', define 'difference', if you want to cry difference, I can say the RoC of 1950 is entirely different than the RoC of now, why don't we split it at 1950? Or maybe 1960? Or how about 1970? What justification do you have to split it at 1949? Liu Tao (talk) 09:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Just to be clear, the points of difference you objected to I gleaned from the articles concerned, so if you are unhappy with them you’ll need to dispute the content, there. But if you are splitting hairs to deny that the ROC before 1949 was a very different place than it is now/afterwards (a fact I would have called self-evident) then there’s really no profit in discussing this further. Xyl 54 (talk) 14:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I did not say they are not different, I said the your logic is flawed. Of course they are different, because you SKIPPED an entire year of history, many things can happen in 12 months, but if you analyse the RoC territory day by day, you'll see that the difference is subtle. If you want to play years, then fine, I can say the RoC before and after 1948 is also very different, why not split it at 1948? Before 1948, the RoC had control of most of mainland China, after 1948 they become reduced to south the Yangtze plus Sichuan(less than half). I can also say the RoC before and after 1950 is also very different, in 1950 the RoC had roughly 200000 sq km (If not more) of territory, after 1950 it's reduced by half and by another half after 1951. The RoC before and after 1960 had control of over 60000 sq km of territory, after 1960 it's reduced to 30~40 sq km. Now, tell me, why choose 1949 when you have so many other years to chose from? What is so special about 1949 that it deserves 'you honour' of being selected as the year to split and make the RoC 'defunct'? So many good years, yet you choose 1949, and it's not even in the middle of all of these many years. Liu Tao (talk) 16:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Support - my vote probably doesn't count for much (or at all) since I contribute quite infrequently, but think Liu Tao makes some very good points. Aznfurball (talk) 08:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Oppose completely ignoring the politics this article has a clear subject matter reasonably defined. The main RoC article should compromise multiple summary sections and this is one breakout article among many (or should be). SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
This article is NOT a breakout article, when creating 'breakout' articles, you DO NOT create entirely separate state articles. You create subpages linking from the main article. This article should for the most part duped into the HISTORICAL article, not exist as a defunct state article. To create a defunct state article is to say that the ROC is defunct and that the RoC then and now are not the same continuous state. Liu Tao (talk) 09:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
You’re missing the point again, Liu; this article isn’t here to just tell the history of the ROC then, it’s to describe the state as a whole. Its physical make-up, statistics, maps, languages, ethnic composition, politics, social conditions as well as history. In fact, all the things that are currently described in the ROC article, focused tightly on the post-1949 state in Taiwan. Over 44 pages...
And if it's a sub-page, it's a sub-page of the articles of mainland China, as much as of the ROC.
And again, harping on about a "defunct state" page; Just what do you mean by that? Xyl 54 (talk) 14:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Describing the state as a whole? You just skipped out 60 years of history, mate. The ROC before and after 1949 is the same continuous state, to make this split is to say that it is not. If you want to talk about the 'old RoC', then it should be talked about in the History article, that's what IT IS FOR. There is no reason why you should be making a historical state article, there is no reason why you can't put all these information into the history article. The current RoC article shouldn't be focused on the "post-1949 state in Taiwan", in fact post 1949 the state wasn't composed of only Taiwan, it isn't even now. In 1950, the RoC had over 200000 sq km of territory, Taiwan's only 36000 sq km, do the math. The current RoC should not be talking about the RoC 20 years ago, 30 years ago, or 50 years ago, it should be talking about the RoC NOW, any historical stuff should be placed into the History article/section, that is what it was made for.
If it's a sub-page, it should be a sub-page of the RoC History article, we are talking about the history of the RoC, not the history of mainland China, they are very distinct entities, one is a geographical region, the other one is a political state. Mainland China can have its own history page, but not at the expense of the RoC History page. RoC is RoC, Mainland China is Mainland China, there is a difference.
About the 'defunct state' page, look at the template, that is the template for 'defunct/historical state', to use that template would be to say the RoC is defunct. To use ANY state template is to say that the RoC's are separate and different political states, that they are not the same political entities. If you want to push that POV, you better have a criteria to back it up, just saying 'it's different' doesn't cut it. The United Kingdom went from controlling a quarter of the worlds landmass to controlling a few islands, I don't see the UK split because of this territorial change. Liu Tao (talk) 16:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
So it seems that your problem is with a template on this article, rather than the existence of this article; is this correct? If so, then you should withdraw this merge request and open a separate discussion about the template. Quigley (talk) 17:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Actually, it depends on what this article is, if this article is about a 'separate RoC' of pre-1949, then I do have a problem with its existence. What I am proposing is to move this page back to the current RoC page and dupe all its contents into the history article/section. The main RoC page should be talking about the RoC as a whole, with subpages created to maintain a reasonable length, it should not be talking 'exclusively about the RoC in Taiwan post 1949'. 204.126.132.241 (talk) 18:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
There should be no duplicates. ROC post-1949 should only contain post-1949 stuff. There needs to be a big cleanup after we figure out these votes. Benjwong (talk) 22:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
There should be no 'Post 1949-ROC', the RoC is the RoC. There should a main RoC article which talks about the RoC as a whole concentrating on the current RoC (I'm talking current as in NOW and TODAY, not 60,50,40,30,20 years ago), with everything that is historical in the HISTORY section/subpage. If the Subpage is considered 'too long', then split the history subpage into more subpages based on era, you DO NOT create an entirely new state article. Liu Tao (talk) 18:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose break, and support merge: From the US point of view the cut off time should be 1979, whereas from UN's perspectives the point was 1972. 1949 is Soviet Union's and Chairman Mao's position, and perhaps the view shared by geographers and cartographers. 1949 isn't probably the view of diplomats, historians or political scientists. 147.8.46.68 (talk) 11:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Err, I'm confused, are you saying 1949 is not a good year or not? Because what I'm doing is advocating against the 1949 year. Liu Tao (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Anyhow.. support merge and oppose other proposals. 147.8.232.206 (talk) 10:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Should this be a support vote instead? 119.237.249.129 (talk) 08:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The "Republic of China (1912-1949)" should be kept as a separate distinct article. All post 1949 stuff should consider moving to Taiwan. I'll even help with the move and merges. The key point of the contention is 1949, when the PRC emerged basically as a "splittist" state. After this date, Chinese people were largely split to Taiwanren and Daluren. Chinese chars began to split into traditional and simplified. The government was split. The land was split, one on mainland the other on Taiwan island. There is no other year like 1949. The UN political cutoff range of 1971-1979 is more for UN referencing to know when to begin dealing with PRC as China in the international circle. 1949 should be used, not 1971, 1979 etc. Benjwong (talk) 22:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
And before people start saying PRC is about unification of all ethnic groups etc. It actually merged at the micro level, and split at the macro level as an alternative China. Benjwong (talk) 23:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
The RoC is not composed of only Taiwan after 1949, immediately after 1949 (1 Jan 1950) the RoC controlled at least 200000 sq km of territory, Taiwan's only 36000 sq km, do the math. Characters did not 'split', the PRC created new characters. Government did not split, RoC government was moved. Territory split does not constitute for new article, if so every state which has gone through civil war should be split at date of state of the establishment of the 'new state'. If you want to split, choose a date, NOT a year, you cannot split an entire year's worth of history. If you do not choose date, I will assume 31 DEC 1949, which honestly is nothing significant. If you choose 7 DEC 1949, date of the move of the Central government to Taipei, then you are condeming the RoC to be split at every Government move (about ten times starting with WWII). If you choose 1 OCT 1949, date of the PRC establishment, then it's going to be even more difficult as the RoC government at the time was located at Guangzhou, not Taipei, territory at the time was roughly 1/6 of all China. Choose a date, and I will discuss why that date is inappropriate to split at, don't gimme a year and tell me the RoC is different before and after, because a lot of stuff can happen in 12 months. Telling me the RoC is different before and after 1949 is no different than saying the RoC is different before/after 1948, 1950, 1960. etc etc. In fact, the RoC lost more territory in the year of 1948 then they did in 1949, why not the split there? (also a reason why splitting based on 'territorial change' is inapplicable) Liu Tao (talk) 18:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
The definition of split is you start with 1, and end up with 2. With 1 China, 1 character set, 1 full government before, now you are split with 2 of everything. I'd rather not discuss wording in a talkpage, because this is not going into any article anyway. After 1949 when the PRC stepped in is when the ROC government really lasted. I have no problem with moving this "ROC (1912-1949)" article to 1948 or 1950. But this ROC (1912-1949) page needs to cover all 10+ governments. See Historical capitals of China to get an idea. Ideally all 10 governments should have its own page and it stops at 1949. If all voting is consistent, it should look like this. Benjwong (talk) 00:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


ROC (1912-1949)
  • government page 1
  • government page 2
  • government page 10 etc etc
Taiwan
  • current ROC government page
China
  • current PRC government page


  • Oppose this breakdown makes sense as until 1949 the ROC wasn't confined to Taiwan and controlled large amounts of territory that is currently ruled by the PRC, and commonly known as "China". Given the People's Republic of China was founded in 1949 and took control of the vast majority of the territory controlled by the Republic of China its hardly an arbitrary cut off.
  • Quibbling about whether the split should be in 1948 or 1949 is ridiculous, its reasonable to include all the content up until the founding of the PRC in one article - if there needs to be some overlap the other way in the next article in terms of time, that's probably sensible. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Again, as stated many times before, the RoC wasn't confined to Taiwan post-1949. RoC territory in the beginning of 1950 amounted to over 200000 sq km, of which only 36000 is Taiwan, by no means was the RoC 'confined' to Taiwan. Even today, the RoC controls Kinmen and Matsu, which by no definitions are a part of Taiwan. We are talking about the Republic of China, we are not talking about China, if we were writing a 'History of China' article, then it would be sensible to split it at 1949, HOWEVER, this is NOT a history article, rather a state article, when dealing with state articles you must see whether or not if the state is actually defunct or not, you CANNOT split a state just because it lost territory. The RoC is not defunct nor is it a separate political entity than it was from before 1949, therefore a state article should not be made for a pre-1949 RoC. Liu Tao (talk) 23:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
You should not think in terms of defunct or not. In 1949 the ROC shift its core from mainland to Taiwan island. That is enough of a reason for the year 1949. Whether every KMT supporter was able to pack their bag and run for their lives by december 1949, probably not. But when people refer to the ROC nowadays, the core focus is Taiwan island. The smaller islands are side discussions. Benjwong (talk) 00:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Quite, the other islands are trivial in comparison. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose There seems to be a lot of fuss over implications this would have etc. That shouldn't be a consideration. The period between 1912 and 1949 is an often used period of Chinese history in many textbooks. There was a massive change in the nature of the ROC, regardless of islands here and there. At any rate, this article isn't just about the history of how china progressed from one period to the next, but is meant to give an overview of how the country looked at that time, the people, the economy, the culture. This detail doesn't belong on a history article. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose No way. Keep it as is.

(talk) 1:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Support per rationale of Liu Tao. Those who oppose based on public conceptions are misguided; Wikipedia has a role in correcting common misconceptions. From an academic and legal point of view, it makes very little sense to arbitrarily separate ROC into two articles. This seems like a convenient trick to separate the "current events" article from the "historical" article, but in practice it is incredibly messy and difficult for readers to comprehend. JimSukwutput 10:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The articles are confusing enough as they are right now. A merge would result in an even more confusing situation and even less information. Where do I go if I want to know about Mainland China from 1912-1949? I think the whole section of modern China needs a make-over because the mentioned time period is split into 2-3 articles with just bits of new information and a lot of repetition. Instead of arguing about a chronological cut, which is quite interesting but doesn't lead anywhere, I propose a territorial cut into Republic of China (Mainland), which covers the historical and political events from 1912-1949, and into Republic of China (Taiwan), which covers the actions against and in grip of Taiwan from 1912 onward, then stepping into the modern state of Taiwan. Because Taiwan and China are not the same country, even people who think Taiwan was part of PRC would acknowledge that they have quite distinguishable histories. The constant mixing and merging between the two doesn't help anyone, neither students of Taiwan history nor those of mainland Chinese history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saciel (talk • contribs) 14:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Saying that Taiwan and China are "not the same country" is POV itself. And which "China" are you talking about? Many people in Taiwan disagree with each other over the definition of "China" (ROC or PRC), whether it reflects the current de-facto situation or not, and how Taiwan relates to that "China". The splitting of the ROC article itself into a "current country" and "former country" itself is also heavily disputed. That is why I personally am opposed to the renaming of the PRC article to "China". The aim of Wikipedia is to take into account the opinions of the parties involved (whether one is pro-status quo (keeping Taiwan as part of the Republic of China), pro-independence (abolishing the ROC and declaring independence) or pro-reunification with the PRC). That aside, this 1912-1949 article itself is extremely flawed, and there are already articles that cover the period between 1912-1928 (See: Provisional Government of the Republic of China (1912) and Beiyang Government). This makes this article itself overlap with the two that I have listed out. Currently, the national flag, anthem and emblem only reflects the period between 1928-1949. With so much overlapping, would it not be more confusing for readers? That is why there is a proposal to rename this article to reflect only the period between 1928-1949 (see the section below) when the Kuomintang was in power on the mainland. That would certainly fit into the timeline, not overlap with the two earlier articles, and is also in tandem with the post-1949 Republic of China that is based in Taiwan. Raiolu (talk) 16:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Republic of China - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 02:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Disputed

I have inserted a accuracy dispute tag to this article because I cannot tweak the infobox to add the flag and emblem used by the Beiyang Government between 1912 and 1929. Further, the infobox needs to have pre-1928 anthems and leaders added into it.

The current infobox, by listing only KMT leaders and symbols, and labelling the ROC as solely a "one-party state" wrongly suggests that the KMT controlled the ROC in its entirety from 1912 to 1949.--Jiang (talk) 12:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Please see the section immediately above this one. Discussion is underway to reorganize content currently at the Republic of China and Taiwan articles such that the Republic of China will no longer be focused on Taiwan. I suggest closing the merge discussion at two sections above this one.

To remedy the situation in which the "former Country" template cannot cope with what are essentially two successor states sharing the same name (the pre-1928 ROC based on a weak military-backed government and liberal constitution and post-1928 ROC based on a Leninist one-party state), I propose to narrow the scope of this article to focus exclusively on the KMT's party-state as it ruled mainland China. The scope of this article should be the years 1928-1949, not 1912-1949. I fail to see how the "former Country" template can cope otherwise.--Jiang (talk) 12:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Jiang. We have a 1912-1928 country article already. Making this 1928-1949 would be a simple easy and accurate improvement. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I strongly support this proposal since it will not cause confusion with the original ROC article, as well as remove the disputed notion that the ROC is a "former country". Additionally, should the article be renamed to National/Nationalist Government of China (1928-1949) or Kuomintang Government (1928-1949)? But if I'm not wrong, these two terms are also commonly applied to the Taipei-based ROC government till the 1970s. I guess further discussion is needed to achieve a consensus on this. Raiolu (talk) 16:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
The "Nationalist Government" (國民政府), legally speaking, ceased to exist in 1948 when the Constitution of the Republic of China (supposedly abolishing the party-state) came into effect, and from then on the name of the regime became the "Government of the Republic of China". Whatever title we choose must be consistent with the Beiyang Government article, so they'd either be named after their governments, or be named Republic of China with a set of years in parenthesis. I prefer using the name of the government since there is some overlap on the date when these regimes were founded/abolished and when the gained/lost international recognition and general control, and we would be able to cover the specific regime from its founding to its demise. The Nationalist Government, for example, was founded in Guangzhou in 1925, and ruled Guangdong province as any other warlord regime, but didn't gain recognition and control until 1928. I think "Kuomintang Government" (using the ruling party as an adjective) would be too vague a term - that could even be used to refer to the current administration in Taipei.--Jiang (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Nationalist government would be fine, and I don't think it would matter if we included an extra year in article content at all. It's easy to simply add in a section that in 1948 a new constitution blablabla, and then note the shift to Taiwan. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Has the request to rename the article to reflect the 1928-1949 period been sent out? We should not leave this thing dangling in order to move things forward. Raiolu (talk) 16:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
No, that's something I've been meaning to do. I think the merge discussion above needs to be closed at the same time as "not merged".--Jiang (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Why is it okay that the old Republic of China article could carry only KMT and not Beiyang symbols, and be linked to for the whole period of 1912-1949, while this article cannot do the same? Shrigley (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
That is because the current article is an application of the existing Countries template, while this article is an application of the former Countries template. The existing Countries template is supposed to be a snapshot of the present and be primarily about the existing entity, while the former Countries template is meant to portray a historical period of time. When you tack on the years "1912-1949" you imply that the article will cover the entire period.--Jiang (talk) 04:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Seeing that Nationalist Government has just been created, would it be wise to either 1) turn this into a disambiguation page leading to the Beiyang Government or Nationalist Government articles or 2) redirect this page to History of the Republic of China?--Jiang (talk) 08:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Neither. The name of the government, regardless of whether it was Nationalist or Beiyang in dressing, was "Republic of China". 1912-1949 is a widely agreed upon periodization of Chinese history, from the fall of the Qing to the establishment of the PRC. Shrigley (talk) 15:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
If you want to emphasize the "Republican Era" has a historical period of China, then wouldn't this article be redundant with History of the Republic of China? The point is that the historical countries template cannot be physically applied here. I fail to see how references to the Republican Era on Wikipedia cannot be pipelinked to the history of the Republic of China article, and what purpose this article would serve, besides being bifurcated at the year 1928. It would run into the same problems as the Republic of China has run into in trying to be both about pre-1949 China and post-1945 Taiwan.--Jiang (talk) 15:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
The problem with History of the Republic of China is that it covers Taiwan from 1945 to the present, as if there is some legitimate continuity between the historical ROC regimes in China and the present regime on Taiwan (some people argue this, but it's not universally accepted even in Taiwan). Most links to this article are concerned with the history of China and not the history of Taiwan. Perhaps it is too much to ask the Republic of China article to handle such a long period of time and many discontinuous governments. I think it should become a disambiguation page between this article and a new Republic of China (Taiwan) personally. Shrigley (talk) 15:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Logically speaking, just because History of the Republic of China covers post-1945 Taiwan does not mean it does not cover 1912-1949 China. Therefore, linking to History of the Republic of China as coverage of the "Republican Era" is not misleading or inappropriate. You are asking that interlinks go to articles that cover only the meaning of the specific use of the term, and that it is not possible to link to an article that is broader than what is being mentioned in context. For example, would it be inappropriate to link to History of China because the context-specific link refers to China only between the Qin and Qing dynasties and the article mentions covers antiquity before the Qin dynasties and the republics after the Qing?
Your argument seems to be over the existence of content covering post-1949 Taiwan in the History of the Republic of China article, rather than the existence of this article, and does not justify use of the historical countries template here. We could, however, make this article a more detailed article of the history article, as a daughter article using summary style, but I don't know what purpose it would serve other than ideological ones.
If you make Republic of China a disambiguation page, how do you deal with links (such as those covering international relations) that necessarily imply continuity of the KMT government? --Jiang (talk) 15:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I do prefer links that are as specific as possible. History of the Republic of China, while in some cases substitutable for this article, does not work in places like {{WW2InfoBox}}, where a "country"-type article is required. Plus, this article's format is more useful, with the map, demographic information, military information, etc. for a concrete period in Chinese history, than a vague and ambiguous history article. For the links that you think need continuity, I would need to see examples: they could probably be handled by a case-by-case basis. Shrigley (talk) 16:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Even though it's titled as a "government," and perhaps it could be renamed, the Nationalist Government article is meant to apply the countries template, and would be pipelinked as China in the {{WW2InfoBox}}. Now that would be even more specific than this article. This article would be redundant and bifurcated, with separate countries templates applied at Beiyang Government and Nationalist Government.
See China and the United Nations.--Jiang (talk) 16:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
If this article is nothing but a disambiguation between Beiyang Government and Nationalist Government, then Republic of China is nothing but a disambiguation between Beiyang Government, Nationalist Government, Taiwan, etc. In both cases, there are instances where historians (arguably unnecessarily) generalize because of the similarities of the governments of the periods. I would handle China and the United Nations by linking pre-1949 ROC references to Nationalist Government and post-1949 ROC references to Republic of China (Taiwan). Shrigley (talk) 16:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
There should be at least one overview Republic of China article. I cannot conceive of a reason to have both this article and a general article on the Republic of China at Republic of China exist. It makes sense to have the overview Republic of China article cover 1912 to present rather than 1912 to 1949 because such an article could be used when both the pre-1949 and post-1949 entities are implicated, without negatively affecting usage in a narrow pre-1949 context. If we want to talk about historians, and I agree that the "Republican Era" is a commonly used concept as a historical period in China spanning 1912-1949, then we are talking about a history article. We have a Warlord era history article covering the years 1912-1928.
How would you handle the first sentence in the China and the United Nations article, or better worded, "The Republic of China was a member of the UN from 1945 to 1971"? It confuses the reader to link to two separate articles when there was both actual and recognized continuity in the legal state entity before and after 1949. That the character (size, population, etc.) of the state drastically changed is reflected in applying separate countries templates in separate articles, but that doesn't mean there cannot be a general article linking to two from a conceptual and governmental perspective when we are dealing with international relations.--Jiang (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I guess this article could be renamed to "Republican Era". The first sentence in the China and the United Nations article is actually nothing like yours. It explains that the China seat was held by Nationalist Government from 1945-1949, and by the Taiwan government from 1949 to 1971, when the government of China regained the seat. We would just need to change the existing wikilinks to [[Republic of China]] to the more precise articles. Shrigley (talk) 18:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I think renaming this article would be an improvement, but the infobox has got to go. Actually, the first sentence in China and the United Nations is poorly worded since it doesn't state when ROC membership ended; I'll fix it shortly. But it does not, and should not, state that it was "held by Nationalist Government from 1945-1949, and by the Taiwan government from 1949 to 1971" because that just confuses people by suggesting that the government behind the seat changed in 1949 (especially with using the word "government"); the government was the same all along, but the government just happened to lose most of its territory in 1949, a fact that can be mentioned as a description but cannot be adequately implied by swapping titles. It is precisely in these situations where a general Republic of China article would be needed, aside from explaining the ROC as a concept, either as existing from 1912-1949 or from 1912-present. To have one article on one concept and another article on the other would suggest the existence of POV forks.--Jiang (talk) 18:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Republic_of_China_(1912–1949)/Archive_1&oldid=1151024459"